Dove - Indigenous People and Environmental Politics

Indigenous People and Environmental Politics Author(s): Michael R. Dove Reviewed work(s): Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol.
35 (2006), pp. 191-208 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25064921 . Accessed: 03/12/2012 13:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.230 on Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:59:24 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Indigenous People and Politics Environmental

Michael R. Dove
School of Forestry Studies and Environmental Studies and Department of Anthropology, Yale University,New Haven, Connecticut 06511-2189; email: michael.dove@yale.edu
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:191-208 First published online as a Review in Advance on July 12, 2006 The Annual Review of Anthropologyis online at anthro.annualreviews.org This article's doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123235 Copyright ? 2006 byAnnual Reviews. All rights reserved 0084-6570/06/1021-0191$20.00
Key Words
environmental movements, knowledge, ethnographic environmental representation, conservation, NGOs social
Abstract Modernity has helped to popularize, and at the same time threaten, Anthropologists question both the validity of the con indigeneity. wisdom of employing itas a political tool, cept of indigeneityand the
but
of the concept has become subject to study. The concept of indige nous knowledge is similarlyfaulted in favor of thehybridproducts of modernity, and the idea of indigenous environmentalknowledge and
conservation ronmentalisms, is heatedly contested. Possibilities of conservation for alternate envi and the combining and and development
they
are
reluctant
to
deny
it to local
communities,
whose
use
goals, are being debated and tested in integratedconservation and derstanding of both state and communityagency isbeing rethought, and new approaches to the studyof collaboration, indigenousrights
movements, rent topics and violence of interest are being developed. indigenous These peoples and other challenge cur an involving development projects extractive reserves. Anthropological un
thropological theoryaswell as ethics and suggest the importanceof

analyzing society, the contradictions and environment. inherent in the coevolution of science,
i9i
would
DEFINITIONS
Whereas nous
OF INDIGENOUS
of popular formal use of the term indige fo
the connotations focuse on nativeness, and
international distinctiveness,
definitions marginaliza
Subjects of study and debate that would
as represented revolving or come ethnicity, religion, have to be as well as the seen?by participants by movements. analysts?as indigenous rights have been around race,
cus more
on historic
continuity,
tion, self-identity,
Oxford English Dictionary (1999): 1. Born or produced

in a land or region; native or belonging naturally to
self-governance.
as peasants formerly have been represented or tribesmen to be as have come represented
naturally
tants or natural for the natives;
(the soil, region, etc.). (Used primarilyof aboriginal inhabi

products.) "native," 2. Of, vernacular. pertaining to, or intended
indigenous peoples. Jung (2003) writes that indigenous subjects in Latin America have
peasants as the privileged interlocu
InternationalLabor Organization (1989): (a) Tribal peo

ples
Asia
torsof the capitalist state; Tsing (2003) writes of a reimagining in South and Southeast of economically
peasants wise as
replaced
and
educationally
marked tappers rubber
nomic conditions distinguish themfrom other sections of the

or is regulated wholly community, own customs or traditions or their laws partially by by special or are in countries who (b) peoples regulations; independent national and whose status regarded ulations to which nization who, indigenous which inhabited as on account of their descent or a from pop the country,
in independent
countries
whose
social,
cultural,
and eco
of theAmazon exemplify this shift with their

rise to global rearticulation forest (Keck attention as 1995). accompanied people by their of the success indigenous Another
disadvantaged and naturally
culturally
tribals. The
geographical of conquest
the country belongs, or the establishment of their economic,
at the time of present status,
region or colo and all of
ful rearticulation
was
of Chiapas: Their
reform movement after it became
little-knownpeasant land
rose to global prominence as a movement about
equally that of the Zapatistas
state boundaries retain some or
irrespective their own social,
legal cultural
reframed
[ILO 1989:Article 1.1] United Nations (1986): Indigenous communities, peo

ples, and nations are those which have a historical conti and precolonial societies that devel nuity with preinvasion on their territories, consider distinct from themselves oped now sectors other of societies in those territo prevailing form at present nondominant ries, or parts of them. They are determined sectors of to preserve, society and develop, to future and transmit their ancestral territo generations existence patterns, para.379] as in accordance with peoples, social institutions, and legal systems. their own [Cobo cultural 1986, 5:
and political
institutions.
Indian indigeneity (Nugent 1995).1The in was creasing global importanceof indigeneity reflected in the development of itsdefinition by theUnited Nations in 1986 and by the International Labor Organization in 1989 (the latterbinding on signatories)?both of which defined indigeneityin termsof historic
continuity, self-identity, 2004 distinctiveness, and marginalization, by self-governance?and
theUnited Nations'
declaration of 1995 to
as the basis of their continued ries, and theirethnic identity,
conception of indigeneitywith such global force has been surprisingly little studied
(in contrast to the
as the decade." peoples' "indigenous to the The of forces confluence leading
(2003)
tional
attributes the origins of interna

indigenism to the
concept
itself). Niezen de
INTRODUCTION: THE RISE OF INTERNATIONAL INDIGENISM

Over of the past quarter-century, interest in local, much native, anthropology's
velopment of
versal Other human analyses
identity politics and uni

laws on and the principles. delocalizing
intersecting
rights focus
impact of modernity
(Appadurai
1996,
autochthonous peoples has been framed in termsof indigeneity, with itsfocus on history
and place. Many i?2 Dove local movements that once
1 See the collected papers on theZapatistas' movement in Identities 3(1-2).
Giddens
of
1984). Hornborg (1996), for exam with the fate ple, suggests thatdissatisfaction
localized systems of resource use under
for cultural
totalizing systems of modernity stimulated interest in indigeneity and indigenous sys

tems of resource
Hirtz (2003) suggests modernitymakes indi geneity possible in the firstplace. He writes,
"it takes modern means to become traditional,
knowledge
and management.
work of the sociologist and cultural ingon the theoretician StuartHall, Clifford (2001) and Li (2000) have suggested thatone way to elide thisdebate over authenticityis to focus on the articulationof indigeneity.
The debate over
authenticity
is
pointless.2
Draw
to be indigenous"; as a result, "through the very process of being recognized as 'indige

nous', these groups enter the realms of moder
head with the publication of Kuper's (2003) Native" in which critique "The Return of the
indigeneity
came
to a
he questioned the empirical validity of claims to this status.3 The debate thatfollowed indi to indigeneityas invented cated thatreferring
was much more controversial even than to tradition (or perhaps culture) referring as in po
nity" (p. 889).
THE CRITIQUE INDIGENEITY

The The Concept
OF
vented, than cle the
litical capital invested in the formerconcept

latter. The came, arti impact of Kuper's in part, from the tensions making and politics within anthro
suggesting
there may
be more
of Indigeneity
between
science
rise of popular international interest in indigeneity is noteworthy, in part, because it was so opposed to theoretical trendswithin anthropology.During the 1970s and 1980s, anthropological thinking about indigenous peoples was radically altered by world sys tem studies (Wolf 1982) even argued even iso lated communitieswere caught up in global
processes, which were even respon a
pology explicit and public.He challenged the discipline: "Should we ignorehistory for fear
of underminingmyths of autochthony?Even we could weigh up the costs and benefits if of saying this or that, our business should
be to deliver accurate accounts of social pro
cesses" (Kuper 2003, p. 400). Many who dis agreed with Kuper did so on the basis of which most agree is cept of indigeneityitself,
problematic. Many anthropologists political have commented on the negative of the con the politics of science as opposed to the con
historical
sible for this isolation. Many

to argue that indigenous
scholars began
itself was
product of historic political processes.Writ ticular Sulawesi), Li (2000) asserts that un like the National Geographic vision of tribal
peoples, found histories there ing of contemporary Indonesia (and in par
identity
formation. Where
today, she
is a political
nature
clear tribal identities are

they can be and traced to engagement,
to group
cept of indigeneity.Some have said it is too exclusive/Gupta (1998, p. 289) writes,

I fear that there is a heavy price to be paid for the emphasis placed by proponents of in on cultural con digenous knowledge purity, tinuity, and alterity. Such efforts at cultural conservation make no room for the vast ma jority of the world's margins poor, who and live on the de
implications
says,
of confrontation
warfare and conflict.Also writing of South east Asia, Benjamin (2002, p. 9) similarlyar
gues that, "[o]n thisview, all historically and ethnographically reported tribal societies are
secondary formations." The academic concep
of subsistence
the most
graded ecological
conditions but who cannot
tion of indigeneityalso was impacted by in fluential scholarship on the inventionof tra dition (Hobsbawm & Ranger 1983) and by
the related argument thatculture itselfis but a construction (Linnekin 1992), so the search
2 Compare with Clifford's (1988, p. 1) critique of "pure products." 3 There was an extended debate regarding Kuper's argu ment and,more generally, thewhole question of indigene ity in 2002-2004 in Today. Anthropology
www.annualreviews.org
People Indigenous
193
claim to be
'indigenous
ited definition accorded
in the lim people' that term.
tribal slotwho are found deficient according

to the environmental them must also beware." contrast to the increasingly to approach indigeneity, has traveled, been cau how trans standards expected of
Similarly,Li (2000, p. 151) writes, "one of therisks that stemsfrom the attention given
to
In sharp tious ever, academic the
situations in the countryside are privileged

while others are overlooked, thus unneces
indigenous
people
is that some
sites
and
concept
sarily limiting the field within which coali tions could be formed and local agendas
identified pecially which and great reflects supported." for people These who risks are es move of place about, in con
formed, and enthusiastically deployed the world over (B?teille 1998).The same poten
tial that makes anthropologists it attractive anxious to many on about local the concept makes
peoples.4 Niezen's
indigenism local
(2003) term international

comment this mo
is an ironic
ceptions of indigeneity (Li 2000). Whereas

nomadism nized and transhumance niche, indigenous of people and
the importance
Most alarming to anthropologists is that bility.

communities are not concept to their own uses the just adapting but are doing the re
fit into a recog there are far greater in resettlement,
numbers
involved
migration, and flight. Thus

knowledge management
the resource
skills of ur
verse. Jackson (1995, 1999) has written about how local notions of history and culture in Vaup?s, Columbia, are being changed to fit the received global wisdom of what consti tutes Indianness; Pulido (1998) writes of the deployment of romanticized ecological dis
courses United and States culturalism as a means in the southwestern of resistance using
ban squatters (Rademacher 2005) and fron tier colonists (Brondizio 2004, Campos & Nepstad 2006) have tended to be less visible, less privileged, and less studied. and Insecurity
who are status, the concept eligible for in can be a double
Plasticity
Even digenous
the master's tools; andLi (2002) worries about the feedback loop throughwhich an external sedentarist metaphysics is shaping the belief
and practices of those called indigenous of the de have, also pre in Indonesia. Obviously ployment of calculated indigenous instances status
for those people
edged sword. Rangan (1992) has written of the negative local impact of the global em move brace of theChipko indigenous rights ment in northern India, and Conklin (1997)
has written about the downside of Amazonian
dictably, generated some political backlash.

interestingly, they have gen
But, more
peoples' strategicadoption of global imagesof Aspirations for and articulations indigeneity. of indigenous identitythat appear inauthen tic and opportunistic ism to counter this backlash [compare with may elicitofficialdisdain and sanction,which Li (2000) sees as a real Hornborg's (2005) related observation that it Native Ameri threat in Indonesia. Indigenous identityis in is increasingly legitimate for or undershot. Thus, Li (2000) writes that if
people present themselves as too any case a narrow target, which is easily over cans in Nova Scotia to invoke
erated adjustments by those doing the de ploying. Conklin (2002) writes of a shift ing emphasis in Brazil from indigenous rights to indigenous knowledge and shaman
whereas iftheypresent theyriskresettlement,

primitive enough, on other Once grounds. status has been attained, official behavior as not they risk indige expecta
primitive,
credness in defense of their resource rights]. Anthropologists have also adjusted to this
images
of sa
themselves
resettlement nous tions
Li (2000, p. 170)writes, "[candidates for the

194 Dove
of appropriate
can be exacting.
ploying the concept (pp. 1040, 1044).
(2002) recommendation that in 4Compare Hodgson's stead of engaging in debates over the definition, construc tion, and authenticityof indigenous claims, anthropologists should instead ask how andwhy indigenous groups are de
evolving situation by beginning to study the emic meaning of the articulation of indige nous status. Thus Oakdale (2004) has studied the meaning that externallyoriented displays of culture and ethnicity Kayabi ofBrazil by the
the foundation for a new applied anthropol ogy by promoting collaborative development
with proved anthropology's north-south subjects collaboration. as well as im in Scholars
hold for the And Graham Kayabi themselves. the (2005), intriguingly, suggests globally ori ented articulationof indigenous statusby the Xavante ofBrazil isdrivennot by identity pol iticsbut by a quest forexistentialrecognition.
These feedback
other disciplines pursued parallel lines of in with Scott (1998) developing a distinc quiry,
between scientific knowledge on the one and partisan, situated, knowl practical as "m?tis"on the other.
tion hand,
Giddens (1984) has examined what he calls the interpretiveinterplaybetween social science
and
dynamics
are not
unexpected.
Similar to the concept of indigeneity,in digenous knowledge soon became the subject
of a wide-ranging writes
edge, which
he glossed
and influential analysis, Agrawal (1995, p. 422)
critique.
In
pioneering
ory cannot be kept separatefrom the activities composing its subjectmatter, a relationship thathe aptly terms the double hermeneutic.
Certainly, what is today known and classi fied as indigenous knowledge has been in in timate interaction with western knowledge since at least the fifteenth century. In the face of evidence that suggests contact, variation,
its subjects,
and he
concludes
that
the
INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Indigenous
discourse
Knowledge
was dismissive of lo
The twentiethcentury's high-modern, global cal knowledge (Scott 1998), includingknowl ment of theconcept of indigeneity(Brokensha
et al. 1980) was a reaction so was localizing to impacts, to de modernity's the rise in interest edge of the environment. Just as the develop of development
exchange, communication, and learning over the last several centuries, it is difficult to adhere to a view of indige nous and western forms of knowledge being untouched by each other.
transformation,
Ellen & Harris (2000) point out that the epis

of much temic origins whether knowledge, are hidden, folk or scientific, and they ar to the has contributed gue this anonymity
in indigenous knowledge in part a response

quences vision modernity's deskilling for local communities. the dominant knowledge of and conse In an explicit development scholars ar
effort to counter discourse, of
entific practice and indigenous knowledge.

When
emergence
of a perceived
divide
between
sci
gued that indigenous peoples possess unique

systems basis knowledge successful that can serve as the for more development so inter
indigenous
vealed, the label of indigenous knowledge

often becomes more
the origins
of knowledge
can
be
re
case of smallholder rubber cultivation in

Southeast Asia, closer study reveals that al
questionable.
In
the
powerful though this is indeed an impressive system so quickly (itwas invoked in principle 22 of of agro-ecological knowledge, itcould hardly the 1992 Rio Declaration) that in 1996 the be less indigenous in nature (Dove 2000). to World Bank declared its own commitment Hornborg (2005) points out that so-called in to itself indigenousknowledge by committing digenous knowledge systems are reified by the of bank. the structures that marginal becoming knowledge Proponents modernity of the concept of indigenous knowledge ini ize them.The concept of a chasm instead between local and extralo tially had high hopes for it, as illustratedby of a confluence Interest in this concept became
ventions (Nazarea 1999, Sillitoe et al. 2002).
Sillitoe's (1998) claim that it could serve as
cal systemsof knowledge isnot sociologically

Indigenous People
ipj
neutral.5 vision cept
By problematizing local and
purported obscures
di
represented appropriation patenting most
a reaction
against countries
history coupled and
of free with sale
between of
extralocal,
the con ex
of such resources,
isting linkages or even identities between

authorities bureau political, privilege a vested with in interest
indigenous
knowledge
in Western
then
back to indigenous peoples in some of the ing intellectualproperty rights to indigenous

peoples egregious cases. The concept of assign
the two and may cratic
the distinction (whether itsmaintenance or

collapse). Many scholars argue for replacing this
peared, however. I previously suggested the

concept's respect were premises to the national of many disingenuous and politics indigenous with struc com
proved
to not
be
as
simple
as it ap
more concept of a neat dividewith something On the of his work with basis complicated.
migrants in southeastern
(1999) argues for replacing the perceived di

between local and universal knowl
Nicaragua,
Nygren
chotomy as
edge with an understanding of knowledge Similarly, Gupta (1998, pp. 264-65), on the basis of hiswork in Uttar Pradesh innorthern
India, maintains heterogeneous, negotiated, and hybrid.
munities (Dove 1996). Brown (1998) similarly concluded intellectual property rightswere an inappropriate, romantic, and politically
naive
tural marginality
nities. Actual attempts to deploy intellectual

property munities com rights, and engage indigenous in partner global bio-prospecting been less than successful. Greene the problems of a controver
way
of defending
indigenous
commu
ties" are characterized by a "mix of hybridity,

mistranslation, and
that "postcolonial
moderni
ships, have (2004)
Historical
mensurabilities
studies of how
or
incommensurability." arise
such incom
are
contradictions
perhaps most promising of all, as in Ellen's (1999) analysis of the internal contradic
tions the in contemporary which in Nuaulu reflect their views recent of and environment, changes
Peru's high forest,and Berlin & Berlin (2004) describe the much-publicized col regretfully lapse of a bioprospecting project inChiapas, Mexico, which they subtide "How a Bio
Project prospecting ceeded Failed." That Should Have Suc
sial ethnopharmaceutical project of the Inter national Cooperative BiodiversityGroup in
analyzes
ongoing relations. An
environmental
digenous knowledge involves the issue of intellectual property rights.The traditional coupled with the development of interest in the conservationof biodiversityingeneral and plantswith pharmaceutical value inparticular,
led to interest in anthropological focus on plant knowledge,
important
locus
of debate
over
in
Environmental Indigenous Much

edge has
Conservation
by
Peoples
on which natural was resources reflected and in the en of
of the interest in indigenous knowl

focused
the environment, emergence vironmental this concept
of the concept knowledge. represented
of indigenous The emergence a reaction
intellectual property rights to indigenous peoples for biogenetic resources (Brush & Moran et al. 2001). This also Stabinsky 1996,
assigning
market-oriented
to the his
toricalproliferationof discourses that largely and uncriticallyblamed local populations for

environmental discourses were Most of these degradation. driven by a neo-Malthusian a view now
(e.g., by distinguishing between mad and sane, sick and healthy, criminals and law-abiding citizens) (p. 208).
constructed division between indigenous and non indigenous knowledge is an example of what Foucault (1982) calls "dividing practices," referringto the many ways bywhich societies objectify the other and privilege the self
5 The
view of population growth outstripping avail

able resources,
for being overly simplistic and, in particu drivers. The

lar, ignoring overarching
widely
critiqued
field of political
political-economic
ecology
196
Dove
established itself,inpart, through the critique

of these
orWest
(2005), New many
who
compares are
emic
and
eric
amples ofwhich includeBlaikie's (1985) work on soils,Fairhead & Leach's (1996) work on forests,andThompson et al.'swork (1986) on
the Himalayan
degradation
discourses,
notable
ex
views ofGimi relationswith their forests in

Papua For criterion Guinea, relatively intention versus rare.6 is the key the absence scholars,
for the presence of claims
Although therewas both some historical justice and empirical validity to this correc
the concept was of indigenous also flawed. environmen As a propo
ecosystem.
of conservation.Thus Stearman (1994) ques

tions the accuracy for resource man aware agement in the absence of conscious
tion,
ness, and Smith & Wishnie

argue come conservation not must an unintended behavior natural
(2000) similarly
out
nent, Berkes (1999) wrote, it embodied three essentializedmyths about indigenouspeoples:

that of the exotic and sult, fierce the noble other, savage Iconic the intruding wastrel, a re or fallen angel. As the subject of en cases of indigenous
tal knowledge
be an intended
ever, much conserving
How by-product. that has the effect of is not inten
resources
this concept debates.
too became
vironmentalism such as that of the Kayap? of Brazil have been subjected to exacting cri
tional (just as much religious behavior does not constitute religiosity).Fairhead & Leach (1996, pp. 285), in their pioneering reinter West pretation of perceived deforestation in
Africa, attribute the actual afforestation tak
tiques. Posey's analysis (1985) of the anthro pogenic forest islands (apete) of theKayap?
one of the most
ingplace to "the sum of amuch more diffuse

a constellation write more than villagers a They that, "While
set of relations, structure."
was
vironmental knowledge andmanagement by ographer Parker (1992), however, countered

that these islands were ucts of the advance the edges really the natural prod and retreat of the forest at savanna. An equally indigenous peoples ever presented. The ge
powerful
visions
of en
do intentionally precipitate thesevegetational

in this is not always so their agency changes, overt. Short-term and everyday agricultural can sometimes in themselves activities lead unintentionally results and to these
of the Brazilian
although there is evidenceNative Americans had possessed both indigenous knowledge of

and an ecological there ronment, actually, sources. to whether perspective is no evidence on the envi ever re as they had natural launched anywhere
robustdebate broke out in the wake ofKrech's (1999) publication inwhich he claimed that,
eficialvegetational results;villagers know the essarilywork for them" (p. 207). Although
appreciate them, but do not nec the Kayap?, reasons was
long-term
and ben
Posey, haps
in his work inclined
with
per
for political
to exag
Indeed, any
conserved intentionally a debate was indigenous people
in the world had ever practiced anything that could properly be called conservation to conscious ones, asEllen (1999) does for the (Stearman 1994).One glaring lacuna in these Nuaulu of eastern Indonesia.He distinguishes debates is the lack of critical attention to the an older, local, embedded system of Nuaulu
cross-cultural of the concept translation and interpretation itself, espe of and outside of conservation societies from a newer sys knowledge tem of of environ knowledge higher-order mental and he does so partly on the processes, environmental
the consciousness of their resource gerate too he that management practices, recognized some with consequences practices important were of the everyday, unconscious variety. It is to look at how unconscious prac illuminating era tices have been transformed in the modern
cially
in non-Western
themajor world religions. Studies similar to thatofTuck-Po (2004), who explores the in
concept of environmental degrada
tion among theBatek of peninsular Malaysia,
digenous
6 West (2005, p. 632) calls forplacing the "politics of trans lation" at the center of environmental anthropology.
People Indigenous
197
basis these ICDP: integrated conservation and development project tween
of self-consciousness.7 studies suggest ismore
Taken
together, divide be in resource of dif
this new attack
intention
any perceived and nonintention likely
elicited paradigm from conservationists
sharp who,
counter disputing suc a re (Oates
the basic cess turn
management ference than between vationist
a reflection
of tying conservation principle to human demanded development, to the fortress nature approach
between
modernity conservationist
and premodernity and nonconser
practices.
1999,Redford & Sanderson 2000, Terborgh 1999),which helped propel a shiftin the late
1990s from the
and Integrated Conservation and Development Projects Extractive Reserves

The debate over reached gard to its most integrated indigenous critical juncture conservation conservation with and re de
gions. Defenders of the basic principle of ICDPs have responded equally vigorously (Wilshusen et al. 2002).Holt (2005) points out
that there tectionist is a catch-22 paradigm, in the resurgent pro lack in that only groups
community
level
to ecore
ket ties
velopment projects (ICDPs). Widespread failureof the traditional fences and fines ap
proach to
InternationalUnion for theConservation of
protected
area
management
led the
only groups thathave all of these characteris tics are likelyto have the incentive to practice conservation.9 Shepard (2006), drawing on
Peru, the claim that local communi questions ties do not conserve and Schwartz resources, are
mar population growth, and ing technology, are seen as conservation friendly, but
World Wildlife Fund, and the Nature, the United Nations Environmental Program to call for a shiftaway from the strict separa
tion of conservation and human
Manu National Park in long-termresearch in
man et al. (2000) present a convincing politi

cal argument best defenders that local people of tropical actually against the the forests
to a combination of the two in their 1980 World Conservation Strategy.8 This led to the global proliferationof ICDPs, defined by were commit Wells (1992), which typically
ted to raising munities areas, with the standards next located of living of com to or within protected that this was the pri
development
threats to themfrom both public and private

sectors.10 One is the of the best-known so-called which extractive were of ICDPs examples reserves of the to address goals extraction both
Amazon,
designed
the premise
conservation the noninvasive,
and development sustainable
through of for
of the amount of pressure mary determinant on natural resources. to be ICDPs proved complex to
failed to achieve their dual social and envi

ronmental et al. 2005 objectives for a (see Naughton-Treves recent assessment). see Neumann In
implement,
however,
and
often
est products (Allegretti 1990, Schwartzman 1989). Heavily promoted but little studied
depth studiesof specificproject historieshave

been
Gezon
rare (for exceptions,
1997,
West 2006).Whatever the case, 1997,
9In a related argument, Fisher (1994) observes that the Kayap?'s articulation of an ecomystical attachment to the landwas suited only to a specific political-economic junc ture in time. 10The debate over ICDPs notwithstanding, there is con siderable convergence today between environmental an thropologists and conservation scientists, beginning with theirmutual commitment to a nonequilibrium paradigm and a related rethinkingof simplistic concepts of commu
7 Related studies have looked at how indigenous peoples, as part of this process of conscious environmentalism devel opment, have strategically deployed claims to indigenous environmentalwisdom (Conklin & Graham 1995,Li 2000, Zerner 1993). 8The history of the separation of society and environment inU.S. protected area management, which set themodel formuch of the rest of theworld, is detailed in Spence (1999). Dove
nity, nature, and culture (cf. Scoones 1999). Both fields share an interest in the prospects for community-based re sourcemanagement and skepticism regarding the benefits of market involvement; both are re-examining the over looked agency of local social as well as natural actors; and both are asserting themerits of an engaged versus disen gaged science.
198
(Ehringhaus 2005),11 it soon transpired that some of the indigenous communities involved
found extractive reserves too
knowledge,
whereas
Fairhead
and Leach
em
began logging instead of conserving their forests [ashappened with the Kayap? (Turner 1995)].Zimmerman et al. (2001) report some
what more optimistic extractive results from reserve a second sup generation project,
constraining
and
phasize the importance to scholarsof studying thepolitics of thedeflectedknowledge of pol The new paradigm is reflectedin thepost driven rethinkingof state hege structurally
mony, icy makers.
which ported by Conservation International, is attemptingto present theKayap? with im

proved economic alternatives to logging.
on published in theAmerican Anthropologist work ofJamesC. Scott (Sivaramakrishnan the 2005). A complementary development is heightened interestin the agencyof local peo ple and communities (Brosius 1999a,c), de fined as "the socioculturally mediated capacity to act" (Ahearn 2001, p. 112). Scholars such as Li (2000) have looked at theway agency is exercised in the articulation of indigene
exemplified
in the recent
set of essays
INDIGENEITY, AGENCY, SOVEREIGNTY

Community
A number
and State
have commented on
of observers
a fundamental shift in thinking within envi

ronmental ter of a anthropology century politics, with and over respect the past quar to the study Thus,
to ma she says opens up room ity, which neuver that might otherwise be unavailable,
Brosius (1999a) argues that a major discon tinuity between the ecological anthropology of the 1960s and 1970s and the environmen tal anthropology of today is that the latter
draws on poststructural theory. This discon
of power,
sovereignty.12
p. 163) writes, "the telling of this story [of indigeneity]in relation toLindu or any other place in Indonesia has to be regarded as an the cultural and political work of articula tion through which indigenous knowledge and identitywere made explicit, alliances formed, and media
focused." One accomplishment, a contingent outcome of
even if some of the elements employed in this articulation are essentialized. Li (2000,
tinuity is perhaps reflected in the distinction between Posey's (1985) analysis of forest is
lands in the Amazon, which
attention appropriately
perceived agency,
1970s, and Fairhead & Leach's (1996) analy sis of forest islands in West Africa, carried out in the early 1990s (Dove & Carpenter 2006). Both studiescorrectthe idea thatforestislands
are Posey remnants of natural the forest, but whereas Fairhead Posey em emphasizes emphasize correction, the mistake.
began
in the late
the local community, is increasingly prob

lematized. tributed nity con have Many anthropologists to a revisionist view of the commu less homogeneous, harmonious,
site of traditionally
as much
and integrated and much more historically Writing contingent than formerly thought.
south Indian irrigation systems, for exam
and Leach
on
phasizes the political importance to policy

makers of valuable indigenous environmental
(1997, p. 471) argues, counterin that older, supralocal social systems tuitively, have actuallybeen replaced bymore localized
ones in recent times state: because of the demands of the modern
ple,Mosse
11A recent assessment by Godoy et al. (2005) concluded that the available evidence stilldoes not allow any definitive conclusions to be drawn regarding the impact of extractive reserves on thewell-being of indigenous communities or the success of their resource-conservation practices. 12Agrawal (2005b) maintains that the literature on indi geneity is stillmarked by the absence of any theory of power.
The ment'
newly ideas
theorized stressing
'community manage locally and have autonomous, com within practice) self-reliant emerged and
internally
sustained
institutions munity a discourse global
(policy
Indigenous People
199
CBNRM:
community-based natural resource management
oriented
towards finding community solu tions to the perceived problems of state and irrigation management; of addressing of cost-sharing, the financial solu the pol recovery, tions that are capable icy imperatives
Collaboration Much scholarship has tried tomove beyond

of local resistance, as seen in the
market-based
work of Scott (1985, 1989) (whichwas itself

an to the early and central contribution study of agency). Some felt Scott was overly op in his assessment timistic of local resistance
the concept
and reducing state.
liability of the
The
hegemonic
global
natural
discourse
resource man
of
possibilities,whereas others believed he was not optimistic enough and local communities
did not
pirical basis. The problems and prospects of long historyof studies of opposition between CBNRM are reviewed byAgrawal & Gibson forest departments and indigenous peoples, (2001) and Brosius et al. (2005). Leach et al. Mathews (2005) andVasan (2002) analyze the (1999), on the basis of a comparative global in which foresters and farm community in CBNRM, and Berry (2004), reviewingcases inAfrica, argues theCBNRM
creates more One than it solves. problems cases of commu of the most debated study, critique the premise of a consensual everyday ways ers get actually taking Others, to mutual advantage. along a Foucaultian view of decen
agement (CBNRM), which helped to promote the development of this concept of community, is undermined by its shaky em
community-based
nity actors but also collaborated with them

in more ined. For complex ways than had been imag from a example, in a departure
simply
resist
powerful
extracommu
process of deciding who and what are local
tered relations of power and themaking of

subjects, are more
nity identityand autonomy involves the San of theKalahari, who were long taken to be
an iconic people, case of isolated, timeless, a view now under revision indigenous and debate.
Agrawal (2005 a) suggests the widely lauded granting of forest rights to villagers in India
is really a way subjects. of making them into environ mental
negative.
For
example,
The
influential revisionistWilmsen (1989) argues the San were integrated into

capitalist economies materially, as the
most
Collaboration and complicity are distin guished from participation in this literature.
As interest in revealing has waxed, informal collaboration of formal ipation. of patterns so too has a critique structures of partic there
modern
British colonial administration strengthened

the Tswana surplus from tribute the system, which San, and they extracted were also
has been amajor discursive shiftinglobal de

velopment circles toward ensuring the par
developmental Over the past
quarter-century,
integrated discursively in a way that obfus ticipation of indigenous communities in their cated their real history (cf. Sylvain 2002). In own development,which was reflected in the more of rejoinder, Solway & Lee (1990) argue that,
although San, less, at some San were if not dependent isolated on non and time and emergence purportedly others were,
least
actively resisting incorporation into world

capitalism.13
substantially
autonomous
ral appraisal and local mapping), as well as CBNRM (discussed above).14 But criticshave
questioned Nielsen ipatory
techniques
of research
(e.g., participatory
participatory ru
sures really are (Mosse 1994). Trantafillou &

(2001), for example, simply in relations argue leads empowerment that partic to greater
just how
participatory
these mea
13 An analogous debate, known as thewild yam debate, fo cused on whether these and other tubers constituted a suf ficiency robust source of wild carbohydrates for tropical forests to support people without extraforest ties and de pendencies (Headland & Bailey 1991, McKey 1996). 200 Dove
enmeshment
of power.
14Compare Rademacher & Patel's (2002) analysis of the political genesis of the rise of the participatory paradigm.
Much of the scholarship on collaboration has focused on relations between indigenous

communities
mental as
movements, in projects
they
tions (NGOs). Tsing (1999, p. 162) is hope

ful about the prospect of such collaborations,
and nongovernmental
organiza
possibilities forbuild writing that they"offer environmental social justice in the and ing Others, such as Conklin & Graham (1995), who have also studied the shifting middle ground betweenNGOs
place somewhat countryside as exciting as any I have heard of."
engaged to seduce or to grass tempting compel" roots groups "to participate in statist projects of environmental projects governmentality," that envelop surveillance movements "within for local, national, and global environmental (Brosius
be viewed "might at of domestication, NGOs: nongovernmental organizations
institutions
and governance"
1999b,
pp. 37, 50).15 Complementing

movements has been
the interest in social

new interest in the
and indigenous peo

emphasis on
The capacityof theoldest andmost insecurity. NGOs to benefit in powerful international tioned. Chapin (2004) and Bray & Anderson (2005) set off a firestormof debate by claim tal NGOs were no longer (if indeed theyever had been) defenders of indigenous rights. In her case studyof fishing in theCentral Ama zon of Brazil, Chernela (2005) builds on this critiqueby arguing theproblem is amore sub NGOs' tlebut equally problematic shiftin the role frommediation to domination and from local partnering to local production. Rights Movements
has become Jackson of great & Warren in ing several of the world's leading environmen digenous peoples has especially been ques
ples,
greater
its
study of violence involving indigenous peo ples. A prominent focus of scholarshipon this topic has been what Richards (1996, pp. xiii)
terms the new barbarism or Malthus-with
of tribalviolence in terms guns interpretation

of unchecked population/resource has drawn who a pressures
(Homer-Dixon 1999,Kaplan
terpretation anthropologists cal resources than sharp
1994).This in
rebuttal from
argue, first, that violence of impoverishment reverse and, second, Western local that
ismore likely to result in degradation of lo

and the
peoples extralocal involving
political-economic industrialized
forces?often countries?
arefrequently implicated in the causes of such violence (Fairhead 2001, Richards 1996). A
number argued of contributors for the need to this debate have to articulate emic under
Indigenous The
rights terest
expression of agency in indigenous

movements to anthropologists. in Latin
standingsof violence (Fairhead 2001,Harwell & Peluso 2001). I have analyzed the disconti
nuity inKalimantan, Indonesia, between aca of ethnic violence demic explanations of political and indigenous economy in terms explana
(2005) have reviewed the literatureon such

movements America,
(2002) has reviewed the literatureforAfrica

and the Americas. Well-studied cases include
and Hodgson
tions in termsof culture (Dove 2006).
the Chipko movement (Rangan 1992), the Narmada dam (Baviskar 1995), theZapatistas (Jung 2003, Nugent 1995), and the rubber tappersof Brazil (Allegretti1990,Ehringhaus 2005, Keck 1995).There has also been great
interest in the relationships of such move
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND ANTHROPOLOGY

Problems
The movements and vio study of indigenous resource and knowl lence, indigenous rights
ments to extralocalNGOs, led by Brosius's (1999a,c) study of the Penan logging block
ades in Sarawak. Brosius became interested
edge, and thedeploymentof indigenous status

15 Compare Escobar & Paulson's (2005) analysis of the dis continuity between dominant biodiversity discourses and the political ecology of socialmovements. 201
in the implicationsforgovernmentalityraised
by such mental relations. NGOs He writes that as environ environ displace grassroots
IndigenousPeople
and
of anthropological interesthave become the are generated not bymisguided outsiders (the tools bywhich indigenous peoples articulate media, scholars or politicians highlighting their identities, stake claims to local resources, primordial identitiesand exotic tribal rituals) and fightfor their rights in regional,national,
and international arenas poses moral and ethi
about the pol identity all raise questions itics and ethics of research. That the topics
counter religious
understandings terms, when
framed these
in ethnic
or
understandings
cal challenges to anthropologists?challenges p. 368) writes, "[w]ith but a few exceptions,

anthropologists tween mapping veals have yet to address that require new responses. As Brosius (1999c,
but by everyday 'indigenous' experience?" Ortner (1995, p. 190) attributesethnographic

refusal, of in part, to a "failure of nerve sur
rounding questions of the internal politics

dominated
thepolitical implicationsof the differencebe

mapping the life of the contours a and village... a of social movement."
seriously
in "ethnographic thin-ness" (p. 190), but it also reflects a lack of respect for people's own understanding of their motives (Baviskar 1996).
groups."
It not
only
results
The debate regarding these implications re

that a sea change has already taken place
Prospects within the discipline with respect to the ad mixture ofmorality and science.The debate The implications of academic critique grow overKuper's (2003) articleon indigeneity, for ever more complex. Thus, Latour (2004) sup that simple of revealed from critical scholarship discred disavowal ports a shift example,
on distance and insistence have be politics an come a whereas stance, minority explicit, common. pologists' Kottak personal that anthro of threats to iting matters of fact to an acceptance of concern, He using of the global reality warming from of matters as an
subjective,moral positioning is increasingly

(1999) argues witnessing
case the danger would no longer be coming

an excessive confidence in ideological of fact?as ar we
example.
writes,"
[i]n which
their subjects imposes amoral responsibility,

(2002) points out that the un
even topographyof power in the world makes

neutral impossible. One representation by anthropologists
and Hodgson
as matters guments posturing so to combat learned have past?but from an excessive
matters of factdisguised as bad ideological bi ases!" (p. 227). Latour is troubled by the fact
are actors political decon the tools of academic borrowing warm to attack the thesis of struction global for the same rea ing. Potentially troubling son is the coincidence of popular interest in that environment-despoiling as to how erasure of
in the efficiently distrust of good
which is as little ing is ethnographic refusal, discussed as it is common. Ortner (1995) coined this term to refer to the refusal by
ethnographers own subjects' to write views their thickly about in cases of resistance.
consequence
of this moral
position
This refusal is especiallymarked with respect to behavior thatviolates the political norms
indigeneityand its academic critique, raising localityrelates to the rise of indigenous rights
generally, what role the decontex trend in academia plays in moder of decontextualization). For these anthropology's
questions
of most anthropologists, including violence and biases on the basis of ethnicity,gender,

caste, class,
(and, more tualizing nity's
complicated when what is at issue is not simplybehavior seen as politically incorrect,

but
religion,
and
race.
It
is further
Gidden's
larger project a similar
(1984) double hermeneutic de

sort of feedback anthropology, process. however,
scribes
of indigenous status) of the self-deployments deemed politically nonastute. As Li (2002, p. 364) writes, "[w]hat does it mean for
scholars, 202 Dove to generate knowledge intended to
representations
of behavior
(as
in some
environmental
theoriesare complicated by the addition of the

environment as an active agent. Science, so This ciety, and environment clearly coevolve.
is illustratedbywhat we know of the Kayap?
over
the past
generation, and
for example.
Their
are many
other
environment
it, their identityand theirmodes of repre of all of this, all have changed in a mutually
and constandy process, influencing evolving a host of contradictions at any which presents given a time. We see these same sorts of con who as became tradictions people the Nuaulu, precisely senting it, as well as scholarly understandings
their regimes
for managing
ing possible articulation of indigeneity and

indigenous it renders conservation actual at the very of these time as achievement things
examples
of
modernity
mak
impossible. Such contradictions should be the

future focus or, to put ronment of environmental way, an anthropology, understanding of envi really it another
the coevolution
of science,
among of nature
more distanced from it (Ellen 1999). There
they became
contradictions at all should be the futuregoal

of the anthropology of the environment.
that shows why
society, and these are not
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Carol Carpenter as the students of the advanced Development I am also Simmonds, tutions and Conservation," grateful and my to my indomitable stalwart for a number seminar in which student of ideas that contributed at Yale, "The to this essay, Social as well of that we co-teach version Science presented. Caroline or insti alone.
an earlier research
of this review was two years,
intern for the past
is responsible
of the aforementioned secretary, Ann Prokop. None for the content of this essay, however, whose shortcomings
people are mine
LITERATURE CITED
Agrawal A. 1995.Dismanding the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Dev. 26:413-39 Change
Agrawal A. 2005a.
environmental subjects in Kumaon, India. Curr.Anthropol.46(2): 161-90 A. 2005b. Presented atAgrarian Stud, colloq., Dec. 2,Yale knowledge/power. Agrawal Indigenous University
eds. 2001. CC, Agrawal A, Gibson the State in Community-Based Ahearn Allegrerti LM. MH. 2001. Communities Conservation. and the Environment: New Ethnicity, Gender, Univ. and Press Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers 30:109-38 and agency. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. Language an alternative reserves: for reconciling 1990. Extractive development in Amazonia. In. Alternatives to Deforestation:
Environmentality:
community,
intimate
government,
and
the making
of
and envi Sustain
ronmental
conservation
ableUse of the Amazonia Rain Forest, ed.AB Anderson, pp. 252-64. New York: Columbia
Univ. Press
Steps Toward
Globalization. Appadurai A. 1996. Modernity at Large: CulturalDimensions of Minneapolis: Univ.

Minn. Press
River:Tribal Conflicts OverDevelopment in the BaviskarA. 1995. In the Normada Valley. Belly ofthe Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press
Baviskar A. 1996. Reverence is not
The Politics of Rural and Environmental Discourse, ed. EM DuPuis, ating theCountryside: P Vandergeest, pp. 204-24. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press Benjamin G. 2002. On being tribal in the Malay world. In Tribal Communities in the Malay World: Historical, Cultural, and Social Perspectives, ed. G Benjamin, C Chou, pp. 7-76. Leiden(Singapore: IIAS/ISAS Berkes F. 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional EcologicalKnowledge and Resource Management. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis
enough:
ecological
Marxism
and
Indian
adivasis.
In Cre
People Indigenous
203
Berlin B, Berlin EA. 2004. Community autonomy and the Maya

Mexico: how a bioprospecting project that should have
ICBG project inChiapas,

failed. Hum. Org.
succeeded
63(4):472-86 Berry S. 2004. Reinventing the local?Privatization, decentralization and thepolitics of resource management: examplesfromAfrica.Afr. Study Monogr. 25(2):79?101 B?teille A. 1998.The idea of indigenous people. Curr.Anthropol. 39(2): 187-91 New York: Longman SoilErosion in BlailtieP. 1985.The PoliticalEconomyof DevelopingCountries.
Bray D, Anderson nities. Work. Fla. Brokensha Int. Univ. D, Warren DC: DM, Werner Univ. Press O, eds. 1980. Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development. AB. 2005. Global conservation, Dev. Pap. No.l, Conserv. non-governmental Ser. Inst. Sustainable and local commu organizations, Sei. Lat. America Caribbean,
and shared invisibilityin Brondizio ES. 2004. Agriculture intensification, economic identity,
Amazonian peasantry: caboclos and colonists
Washington,
of America
2): 1-24
Brosius JP. 1999a. Analyses and interventions:
in comparative
perspective.
Cult.
Agrie.
26(1?
talism.Curr.Anthropol.40(3):277-309 Brosius JP. 1999b.Green dots, pink hearts: displacing politics from the Malaysian rain forest. Am. Anthropol. 101(l):36-57 Brosius JP. 1999c. Locations and representations: writing in the political present in Sarawak, east 6(2-3):345-86 Malaysia. Identities and Conservation: Brosius JP,Tsing AL, Zerner C, eds. 2005. Communities History and Politics of BrownMF. 1998. Can culture be copyrighted?Curr.Anthropol. 39(2):193?222 Brush SB, StabinskyD, eds. 1996. Valuing Local Knowledge: Indigenous People and Intellectual DC: Press Island Property Washington, Rights.
MT, Campos Nepstad Biol. 20:In press DC. 2006. Smallholders: The Amazon's new conservationists. Conserv. Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press
anthropological
engagements
with
environmen
WorldWatch (Nov./Dec): 17-31 Chapin M. 2004. A challenge to conservationists. Chernela J. 2005. The politics ofmediation: local-global interactions in theCentral Amazon of Brazil. Am. Anthropol. 107(4):620-31 Culture.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Clifford J. 1988. The Predicamentof Pac. 13(2):468-90 Clifford J. 2001. Indigenous articulations.Contemp. Conklin BA. 1997. Body paint, feathers,andVCRs: aesthetics and authenticityinAmazonian Am. Ethnol. 24(4):711-37 activism.
BA. 2002. Shamans versus Conklin pirates in the Amazonian treasure chest. Am. Anthropol.
104(4): 1050-61 middle ground: Amazonian Indians and eco Conklin BA, Graham LR. 1995.The shifting Am. Anthropol.97(4):215-29 politics.
Dove MR. 1996. Center,
Property People and Intellectual opmental challenge. In Valuing Local Knowledge: Indigenous DC: D 41-67. Island Press ed. S Brush, Stabinsky,pp. Washington, Rights, Dove MR. 2000. The life-cycle of indigenous knowledge, and the case of natural rubber pro ed. RF Ellen, A Environmental duction. In Indigenous Knowledge and itsTransformations, Bicker, P Parkes, pp. 213-51. Amsterdam:Harwood Dove MR. 2006. 'New barbarism' or 'old agency' among theDayak? Reflections on post
Soeharto Dove MR, ethnic violence C, eds. in Kalimantan. 2006. Soc. Anal. 50(1): In press An Historical Reader. Boston: Carpenter In press Environmental Anthropology:
periphery
and bio-diversity:
paradox
of governance
and
a devel
Blackwell.
204
Dove
movement in dilemmas: land use, development policies,and social Ehr?nghaus C. 2005. Post-victory
Amazonian extractive reserves. PhD thesis. Yale Univ. 425
Ellen RF. 1999.Forest knowledge, foresttransformation: historical ecol political contingency, nature in Seram. In and the of Central ogy renegotiation Transformingthe Indonesian
pp.
Uplands, ed.TM Li, pp. 131-57. Amsterdam:Harwood Environmental Ellen RF, Harris P. 2000. ed. Introduction. In Indigenous Knowledge and its Escobar A, Paulson S. 2005. The emergence of collective ethnic identities and alternative AcrossSpaces, Scales and political ecologies in theColumbian rainforest.In PoliticalEcology Social Groups, ed. S Paulson, L Gezon, pp. 257-77. New Brunswick,NJ: Rutgers Univ.
Press Fairhead J. 2001. Press International dimensions ed. NL of conflict Peluso, over natural pp. and 213-36. environmental Ithaca: re Transformations, ed. RF Ellen, A Bicker, P Parkes, pp. 213-51. Amsterdam: Harwood
sources. Univ.
In Violent Environments,
M Watts,
Cornell
Fairhead J, Leach M.
Fisher WH.
andEcologyin Forest-Savanna 1996. AfricanLandscape:Society Misreading the Mosaic. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
1994. Megadevelopment, environmentalism, and resistance: the institutional con
textofKayap? indigenous politics inBrazil.Hum. Org. 53(3):220?32 Michel Foucault: BeyondStructuralism Foucault M. 1982.Afterword: the subject and power. In andHermeneutics,ed.H Dreyfus, P Rabinow, pp. 208-26. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Gezon L. 1997. Institutional structure and the effectiveness
from Madagascar. Hum. Org. 56(4):462-70 development projects: case study Giddens A. 1984. The ConstitutionofSociety:Outline of theTheory ofStructuration. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
of integrated
conservation
and
Godoy R, Reyes-Garc?a V, Byron E, Leonard WR, Vadez V. 2005. The

economies resources. the well-being of indigenous Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 34:121-38 on peoples and their use
effectsofmarket
natural
of renewable
in aXavante politics of existentialrecognition. Graham LR. 2005. Image and instrumentality Am. Ethnol. 32(4):622-41 Greene S. 2004. Indigenous people incorporated?Culture as politics, culture as property in
Gupta Curr. Anthropol. pharmaceutical bioprospecting. 1998. Postcolonial Developments: A. Agriculture E, Peluso Peluso, N. 2001. The pp. ethnic 83-116. violence Ithaca: 45(2):211?37 in the Making Modern of India. Durham,
NC: Duke Univ. Press

ed. N M Watts,
Harwell
in west Kalimantan. Cornell Univ. Press
In Violent Environments,
Headland TN, Bailey RC. 1991. Introduction:Have hunter-gatherersever lived in tropical rain forest independendy of agriculture? Hum. Ecol. 19(2): 115-22
Hirtz F. 2003. It takes modern means to be traditional: on
communities in thePhilippines. Dev. Change 34(5):887?914 Tradition.Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Hobsbawm E, Ranger T, eds. 1983. The Inventionof
Press Hodgson DL. 2002. Introduction: comparative perspectives on the indigenous rights move
recognizing
indigenous
cultural
ment inAfrica and theAmericas. Am. Anthropol. 104(4): 1037-49 Holt FL. 2005. The catch-22 of conservation: indigenous peoples, biologists, and cultural change.Hum. Ecol. 33(2):199-215
Homer-Dixon Hornborg A. TF. 1996. Ecology 1999. Environment, Princeton Univ. Press Scarcity, and Violence. Princeton: as semiotics: of a contextualist oudines for human ecol paradigm
Nature and Society: ed. P Descola, G Palsson, pp. 45-62. ogy. In Perspectives, Anthropological London: Roudedge
www.annualreviews.org Indigenous People 20$
Hornborg A. 2005. Undermining modernity: protecting landscapes andmeanings among the Across Spaces, Scales and Social Groups, ed. S Mi'kmaq ofNova Scotia. In Political Ecology
Paulson, Jackson JE. L Gezon, 1995. pp. 196-214. genuine New and Brunswick, spurious: Culture, Press NJ: Rutgers Univ. the politics of Indianness in the Vaup?s,
Ethnol. 22(l):3-27 Columbia.^. The 1999. Jackson JE. politics of ethnographic practice in theColumbian Vaup?s. Identities 6(2-3):281-317 Warren KB. 2005. Indigenous movements inLatin America, 1992-2004: contro JacksonJE,
versies, ironies, new directions. Annu.
Mex neoliberalism, cultural rights,and the JungC. 2003. The politics of indigenous identity: icanZapatistas. Soc. Res. 70(2):433?62
Kaplan RD. 1994. The
Rev. Anthropol.
34:549-73
rapidlydestroying the social fabricof our planet.Atlan.Mon. (Feb.):44?76 Keck ME. 1995. Social equity and environmental politics inBrazil: lessons from the rubber tappersofAcre. Comp. Pol. 27:409-24 Am. Anthropol. 101(l):23-35 Kottak C. 1999.The new ecological anthropology. Krech S III. 1999. The EcologicalIndian: Myth andHistory.New York: Norton
A. 2003. The return of the native. has critique Latour B. 2004. Why Kuper Curr. Anthropol. 44:389^1-02 run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters
coming
anarchy:
how
scarcity,
crime,
overpopulation,
and disease
are
of concern.
Leach M, Mearns R, Scoones I. 1999. Environmental entitlements:dynamics and institutions Li TM. 2000. Articulating indigenous identityin Indonesia: resource politics and the tribal slot.Comp. Stud. Soc.Hist. 42(1): 149-79 Li TM. 2002. Ethnic cleansing, recursiveknowledge, and the dilemma of sedentarism.Int. Soc. Sei.J. 173:361-71
J. 1992. On AS. 2005 Linnekin the theory and politics of cultural construction in the Pacific. Oceania in community-based natural resource management. World Dev. 27(2):225^47
Crit. Inq. 30:225-48
62:249-63
Mathews
Hum. Ecol. 33(6):795-820 Wild yam question. In EncyclopediaofCulturalAnthropology, Vol. 4, ed. D McKey DB. 1996. M New York: Holt 1363-66. Embers, pp. Levinson, Henry Moran K, King SR, Carlson TJ. 2001. Biodiversityprospecting.Annu. Rev.Anthropol. 30:505 26 Mosse D. 1994. Authority, gender and knowledge: theoretical reflectionson the practice of participatoryrural appraisal.Dev. Change 25:497-526 Mosse D. 1997.The symbolic making of a common property resource: history,ecology, and a locality in tank-irrigatedlandscape in south India. Dev. Change 28:467-504 Naughton-Treves L, Holland MB, Brandon K. 2005.The role of protected areas in conserving Lives.Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press SituatedKnowledge/Local Nazarea V, ed. 1999. Ethnoecology: Neumann RP. 1997. Primitive ideas: protected area bufferzones and the politics of land in Africa.Dev. Change 28:559-82 Human Rights and the Politics ofIdentity. Niezen R. 2003. The Origins ofTndigenism: Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Nugent D. 1995.Northern intellectualsand theEZLN. Mon. Rev. 47(3):124-38 Nygren A. 1999. Local knowledge in the environment-development discourse: from di chotomies to situatedknowledges. Crit.Anthropol. 19(3):267-88
Dove biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annu. Rev. Environ. Res. 30:219-52
Power/knowledge,
power/ignorance:
forest fires and
the state
inMexico.
2o6
Oakdale
S. 2004. The
culture-conscious
Brazilian
Indian:
ness in Kayabi political discourse.Am. Ethnol. 31(1):60?75 Oates JF. 1999. How Conservation Rain Forest: Are Failing in Myth and Reality in the Strategies West Africa. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press
Ortner S. 1995. Resistance and the problem and Kayapo of ethnographic resource refusal. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist.
representing
and reworking
Indian
37(l):173-93
Parker E. 1992. Forest islands
Indians of theBrazilian Amazon. Agrofor. Syst. 3:139-58 Pulido L. 1998. Ecological legitimacyand cultural essentialism. In The Struggle for Ecological United States, ed.D Faber, pp. 293-311. New York: Environmental Justice in the Democracy: Guilford
Rademacher A. 2005. Culturing urban ecology: development, statemaking, and river restoration in
of the Apete. Am. Anthropol.94(2):406-28 DA. 1985. Indigenousmanagement of tropical forestecosystems: the case of the Posey Kayap?
management
in Amazonia:
reappraisal
Kathmandu. PhD thesis, Yale Univ. 341 pp. Rademacher A, Patel R. 2002. Retelling worlds of poverty: reflectionson transforming partici on CriticalReflections patory research fora global narrative. InKnowingPoverty: Participatory Researchand Policy,ed.K Brock, RMcGee,
H. 1992. Romancing the environment:
pp. 166-88. London: Earthscan

environmental action
Rangan
Action, ed. J Himalayas. In Defense ofLivelihoods:Comparative Studies inEnvironmental H Kumarian 155-81. Hartford: West Friedmann, Rangan, pp. Redford K, Sanderson SE. 2000. Extracting humans from nature. Conserv.Biol. 14:1362-64 Rain Forest: Richards P. 1996.Fighting War, Youthand ResourcesinSierra Leone. Oxford: for the
Int. Afr. Inst. Schwartzman S. 1989. Extractive reserves: the rubber tappers' strategy for sustainable use of the
popular
in the Garhwal
Amazon rain forest.InFragile Lands inLatinAmerica: Strategies for Sustainable Development, ed. JO Browder, pp. 150-65. Boulder, CO: Westview Press Schwartzman S,Moreira A, Nepstad D. 2000. Rethinking tropical forestconservation: perils in parks. Conserv.Biol. 14(5):1351-57 Scoones 1.1999.New ecology and the social sciences:what prospects fora fruitful engagement?
Annu.
Peasant Resistance. New Haven: Yale Scott JC. 1985.Weapons of the Weak: EverydayForms of
Univ. Press
Rev. Anthropol.
28:479-507
Scott JC. 1989.Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven: Yale Univ.
Press
Scott JC. 1998. SeeingLike a State:How Certain Schemes toImprove the Human Condition Have
Failed. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press
ShepardGHJ. 2006.Trouble inparadise: indigenouspopulations and biodiversityconservation

in Manu National
Sillitoe P. 1998.The development of indigenousknowledge: a new applied anthropology.Curr. Anthropol. 39(3):223-52 Sillitoe P, BickerA, PortierJ. 2002. Participatingin Knowl Development: ApproachestoIndigenous London: Roudedge edge.
K. 2005. Sivaramakrishnan Introduction to "moral economies, state spaces, and categorical Annu. Rev.
Park,
Peru.
J. Sustain.
For.
In press
violence." Am. Anthropol. 107(3):321-30

Smith EA, Wishnie M. 2000. Conservation and subsistence in small-scale societies.
Anthropol.29:493-524 Kalahari San inhistory. SolwayJS, Lee RB. 1990. Foragers, genuine or spurious? Situating the Curr.Anthropol. 3 3(1): 187-224
www.annualreviews.org People Indigenous 207
National Wilderness: Indian Removal and the 1999. Dispossessingthe SpenceMD. Making of the Parks.New York: Oxford Univ. Press StearmanAM. 1994. "Only slaves climb trees": revisitingthemyth of the ecologically noble
savage in Amazonia. Hum. Nat. 5(4):3 39-57
Am. Anthropol. Sylvain R. 2002. Land, water, and truth:San identityand global indigenism. 104(4): 1074-85 Terborgh J. 1999.RequiemforNature.Washington, DC: Island Press onaHimalayan Scale:An Institutional Thompson M, Warburton M, Hatley T. 1986.Uncertainty ofthe Himalaya. London: Ethnographica Trantafillou P, Nielsen MR. 2001. Policing empowerment: themaking of capable subjects. Hist. Hum. Sei. 14(2):63-86 Tsing AL. 1999. Becoming a tribalelder and other green development fantasies.InTransforming Indonesian the ed.TMLi, pp. 159-202. London: Uplands: Marginality, Power andProduction, Berg Nature in the Global South:Environmen Tsing AL. 2003. Agrarian allegory and global futures.In talProjects inSouth and Southeast Asia, ed. P Greenough, AL Tsing, pp. 124-69. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Tuck-Po L. 2004. Changing Pathways:ForestDegradation and theBatek ofPahang,Malaysia. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books Turner TS.
able production: Vasan S. 2002. the Kayap? revolt against extractivism. of the forest guard: contrasting J. Latin Am. Anthropol. discourses, conflicting 1:98-121 roles and Theory ofEnvironmental Perception anda Strategic Framework for the Sustainable Development
1995.An indigenouspeople's struggleforsociallyequitable and ecologically sustain

Ethnography
Econ. Polit.Wkly 37(40):4125-33 policy implementation. Wells BK 1992. People and Parks: Linking Protected AreaManagement with Local Commu nities. Washington, DC: World Bank
West P. 2005. Translation, value, and space:
Am. Anthropol. 107(4):632-42 mental anthropology. Is Our Government Now: The Politics of West P. 2006. Conservation Ecology inPapua New Guinea.
Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
theorizing
an
ethnographic
and engaged
environ
Wilmsen EN.
Kalahari. Chicago: Univ. 1989. Land Filled withFlies: A PoliticalEconomy of the Press Chicago Wilshusen PR, Brechin SR, Fortwangler CL, West PC. 2002. Reinventing a square wheel:
critique Soc. Nat. of a resurgent Res. 15:17^10 "protecting paradigm" in international biodiversity conservation.
Wolf ER. 1982.Europe and the PeopleWithoutHistory. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press

Zerner C.
Islands. Law Soc. Rev. 28(5): 1079-1122 Zimmerman B, Peres CA, Malcolm JR,Turner T. 2001. Conservation and development al Maluku community in Indonesia's
liances with the Kayap? of south-eastern Amazonia, a
1993. Through
a green
lens:
the construction
of customary
environmental
law and
Environ. Conserv. 28(1): 10-22
tropical
forest
indigenous
people.
2o8
Dove

Dove - Indigenous People and Environmental Politics

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Dove - Indigenous People and Environmental Politics

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Indigenous People and Environmental Politics Author(s): Michael R. Dove Reviewed work(s): Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol.

Indigenous People and Politics Environmental

thropological theoryaswell as ethics and suggest the importanceof

the connotations focuse on nativeness, and

Subjects of study and debate that would

Oxford English Dictionary (1999): 1. Born or produced

as peasants formerly have been represented or tribesmen to be as have come represented

tants or natural for the natives;

(the soil, region, etc.). (Used primarilyof aboriginal inhabi

InternationalLabor Organization (1989): (a) Tribal peo

nomic conditions distinguish themfrom other sections of the

of theAmazon exemplify this shift with their

disadvantaged and naturally

the country belongs, or the establishment of their economic,

at the time of present status,

region or colo and all of

equally that of the Zapatistas

state boundaries retain some or

irrespective their own social,

[ILO 1989:Article 1.1] United Nations (1986): Indigenous communities, peo

as the basis of their continued ries, and theirethnic identity,

as the decade." peoples' "indigenous to the The of forces confluence leading

attributes the origins of interna

INTRODUCTION: THE RISE OF INTERNATIONAL INDIGENISM

identity politics and uni

1 See the collected papers on theZapatistas' movement in Identities 3(1-2).

totalizing systems of modernity stimulated interest in indigeneity and indigenous sys

to be indigenous"; as a result, "through the very process of being recognized as 'indige

nity" (p. 889).

THE CRITIQUE INDIGENEITY

vented, than cle the

litical capital invested in the formerconcept

sible for this isolation. Many

clear tribal identities are

cept of indigeneity.Some have said it is too exclusive/Gupta (1998, p. 289) writes,

conditions but who cannot

ited definition accorded

in the lim people' that term.

tribal slotwho are found deficient according

In sharp tious ever, academic the

situations in the countryside are privileged

(2003) term international

ceptions of indigeneity (Li 2000). Whereas

Most alarming to anthropologists is that bility.

fit into a recog there are far greater in resettlement,

migration, and flight. Thus

for those people

dictably, generated some political backlash.

whereas iftheypresent theyriskresettlement,

resettlement nous tions

Li (2000, p. 170)writes, "[candidates for the

ploying the concept (pp. 1040, 1044).

and influential analysis, Agrawal (1995, p. 422)

INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Ellen & Harris (2000) point out that the epis

in indigenous knowledge in part a response

effort to counter discourse, of

entific practice and indigenous knowledge.

gued that indigenous peoples possess unique

vealed, the label of indigenous knowledge

case of smallholder rubber cultivation in

ventions (Nazarea 1999, Sillitoe et al. 2002).